You know in a funny way you are really blessed in a real way over all this. It is way, way out in the open for you and good honest devout Catholics like you. You can name names, name places, indicate dates and roganisations, quote huge amounts of reference materials. I am afraid in Ireland at least as far as I myself am concerned these matters are so cloudy and hidden, I supect that it is so for much of Europe. Another way recently I notice you are realy blessed is that in recent times Our Lady seems to have stepped n in a very powerful and radical way to expeose evil doing. I even notice this deeds and people are exposed on Marian Feasts which is so wonderful. In a third way you are Blessed in America so much is your politicla clear sightedness, you all seem to know so well when you are being, as say in Ireland , 'Sold a pig in a Poke' . I think this clear sightedness comes from a Native mistrust for big Government. Why is this so imprtant for the Church? Because at bottom her enmies from within have their own Masonic Political agenda. All this makes me supect that the USA is at the very forefront of the war for the soul of the Church and the soul for world. For this very reason I believe Americans have so ,very, very much to rejoice in and be proud off. I can see how well Heaven and Our Blessed Mother fights side by side with you all. I don't think American Catholics (and Americans generally) have much to despair over, but, rather so much to celebrate. You are Fighting this really HUGE War with hell, right on toe to toe and to me , as an outsider you seem to be doing rather well at it.
Josephite, thank you for taking the time to post. (I apologise that I had to trim your post in the quote above in order to fit my response below). As already mentioned in earlier posts here, the documents of V.II and the actions that followed did not match. Also, do you know about this incident that happened during an early V.II council meeting? "Reading some of those accounts of the council sessions, especially those written at the time, is not an edifying experience. Even so relatively sober a book as Fr. Ralph Wiltgen's The Rhine Flows into the Tiber portrays the debates as no nobler than a playground quarrel. Perhaps the saddest description is Fr. Wiltgen's account of Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani being silenced: On October 30, the day after his seventy-second birthday, Cardinal Ottaviani addressed the council to protest against the drastic changes which were being suggested in the Mass. "Are we seeking to stir up wonder, or perhaps scandal, among the Christian people, by introducing changes in so venerable a rite, that has been approved for so many centuries and is now so familiar? The rite of Holy Mass should not be treated as if it were a piece of cloth to be refashioned according to the whim of each generation." Speaking without a text, because of his partial blindness, he exceeded the ten-minute time limit which all had been requested to observe. Cardinal Tisserant, Dean of the Council Presidents, showed his watch to Cardinal Alfrink, who was presiding that morning. When Cardinal Ottaviani reached fifteen minutes, Cardinal Alfrink rang the warning bell. But the speaker was so engrossed in his topic that he did not notice the bell, or purposely ignored it. At a signal from Cardinal Alfrink, a technician switched off the microphone. After confirming the fact by tapping the instrument, Cardinal Ottaviani stumbled back to his seat in humiliation. The most powerful cardinal in the Roman Curia had been silenced, and the Council Fathers clapped with glee.19"
Sg, It is a cop out because no one here has forced you to post that thread originally and no one here is forcing you to continue to post about it. I stated that you questioned the validity of every pope since Vatican II and you claimed this was untrue, then I provided your thread as proof of my statement. #9253 Then you proceeded to open this discussion once again, those are the facts. An honest discussion often includes providing proof of the accusations that you presented. I'm glad that you be looking for such proof. Here is a letter that you might be interested in, A LETTER FROM PADRE PIO TO POPE PAUL VI A short time before his death, Padre Pio, having In mind the Audience which the Chapter Members of his Order would have in the course of their General Chapter, wrote a letter to Pope Paul. In the letter he expressed his firm adherence to the Magisterium and its teachings, particularly mentioning the recent encyclical, "Humanae Vitae". Padre Pio also expressed his obedience, devotedness and filial sharing in the anxieties of His Holiness. The full text is as follows: Your Holiness: Availing myself of Your Holiness' meeting with the Capitular Fathers, I unite myself in spirit with my Brothers, and in a spirit of faith, love and obedience to the greatness of Him whom you represent on earth, offer my respectful homage to Your August Person, humbly kneeling at Your feet. The Capuchin Order has always been among the first in their love, fidelity and reverence for the Holy See. I pray the Lord that its members remain ever thus, continuing their tradition of seriousness and religious asceticism evangelical poverty, faithful observance of the Rule and Constitutions, renewing themselves in vigorous living and deep interior spirit—always ready, at the least gesture from Your Holiness, to go forward at once to assist the Church in her needs. I know that Your heart suffers much these days on account of the happenings in the Church: for peace in the world, for the great needs of its peoples; but above all, for the lack of obedience of some, even Catholics, to the lofty teachings which You, assisted by the Holy Spirit and in the name of God, have given us. I offer Your Holiness my daily prayers and sufferings, the insignificant but sincere offering of the least of your sons, asking the Lord to comfort you with His grace to continue along the direct yet often burdensome way—in defense of those eternal truths which can never change with the times. In the name of my spiritual sons and of the "Praying Groups" I thank Your Holiness for the clear and decisive words You have spoken in the recent encyclical, "Humanae Vitae", and I reaffirm my own faith and my unconditional obedience to Your inspired directives. May God grant truth to triumph, and, may peace be given to His Church, tranquility to the people of the earth, and health and prosperity to Your Holiness, so that when these disturbing clouds pass over, the Reign of God may triumph in all hearts, through the Apostolic Works of the Supreme Shepherd of all Christians. Prostrate at Your feet, I beg you to bless me, my Brothers in religion, my spiritual sons, the "Praying Groups", all the sick—that we may faithfully fulfill the good works done in the Name of Jesus and under your protection. Your Holiness' most humble servant, PADRE PIO, Capuchin San Giovanni Rotondo, 12th September, 1968. Taken from: L'Osservatore Romano Weekly Edition in English 10 October 1968, page 9 L'Osservatore Romano is the newspaper of the Holy See. The Weekly Edition in English is published for the US by: The Cathedral Foundation L'Osservatore Romano English Edition 320 Cathedral St. Baltimore, MD 21201 Subscriptions: (410) 547-5315 Fax: (410) 332-1069 lormail@catholicreview.org https://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/PIOPOPE.HTM
This was my response to you then: "SgCatholic said: I had no intention to deceive. I thought my post was clear that it was about the bad changes post-Vatican II. I don't think I questioned the validity of every pope. I was asking honest questions about what I had read, in what I believe to be a non-aggressive manner. Our Blessed Mother did say that 'the one who should speak will fall silent'. I have said this before and I will say it again - I will never leave our beloved Catholic Church" Again, please let me reiterate that I started that old thread with this question -What do you all think of the following? I had asked a sincere question. Anyway, I will stop with this to and fro about what my intentions were. Let that thread and my posts stand for judgement. Peace.
Sg, you've posted articles speculating that Pius XII could have been the last Pope. Then posted later articles referencing infiltration of the Church by Freemasonry in the 1960's, at least. Ok, so, hypothetically, if Pius was the last Pope, that would mean that what we have post-Pius is likely a non-Church. So, Satan can't infiltrate the Church if it is a false or non Church. I'm not suggesting that you actually believe the contents of all of these articles, it seems like you're just asking questions and throwing stuff out there. But if you (or anyone) were to take the contents of those articles at face value, it would get pretty messy and awful pretty quickly. It is kind of uselessness, imho, to speculate that deeply and in such minute detail about events of the 1940's and 1960's. We have the present to face down. That's a big enough battle.
This is why it has been so incredibly hard to see our country move further and further away from the foundations of its beliefs toward tyranny. I firmly believe that as America goes so goes the world good or bad and I believe the enemy knows this well. This is why the effort has been so strong here for so long to corrupt our youth, our young men, our women and families with heresies and doctrines of Satan. To sow tares among our government and church officials who become like locusts devouring all that is good in their blind ambition for wealth and power. Padraig, I can quite literally sense and feel the change in the air we breath over the last year. I don't think we are past the worst of it but I do see the nation I grew up in through the mist of the lies and deceit that has been a veil over our nation and I do see Patriots gathering together to fight and to risk all. I know that Ireland will rise up in solidarity and opposition to all this. Otherwise, the push would not be so cunning and fierce to entwine your lands with the evil that rests at the heart of all this. We ALL have cause to hope and rejoice!
Instead of "wielding the keys" given to Peter the man seems to be more of an example of the "peter principle"! Fr. Fessio has a history of defending the truth and being punished for it. Jesuit Priest Tells Pope Francis: ‘Be a Man’ and Answer Accusations Jesuit Father Joseph Fessio, Editor-in-Chief of Ignatius Press, said this week that Pope Francis needs to “be a man” and answer allegations that he seriously mishandled the case of serial homosexual abuser Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. The former papal nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, released a report last month declaring that the pope was aware of McCarrick’s misdeeds at least as early as 2013 and yet lifted sanctions against McCarrick that Pope Benedict had imposed and reinstated him to a position of prominence in the Vatican. When a journalist asked the pope whether these allegations were true, however, the pope refused to confirm or deny the report, saying he had no comment to offer. Since then, the pope has attempted to turn the tables on Archbishop Viganò, suggesting that those who level accusations against bishops are in league with Satan, while accused pastors who keep silence are like Jesus on the cross. For some, this was the last straw. “He’s attacking Vigano and everyone who is asking for answers,” Father Fessio told CNN. “I just find that deplorable. Be a man. Stand up and answer the questions,” he said. The Jesuit priest, a longtime personal friend of Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI), has joined the swelling ranks of those calling on the pope to answer the allegations against him and open a formal investigation into McCarrick’s abuse and its cover-up. More than 46,500 Catholic women have signed an open letter to Francis, calling on him to come clean regarding the McCarrick case. Viganò’s testimony “accuses you, Holy Father, and highly placed cardinals of turning a blind eye to former Cardinal McCarrick’s egregious behavior, and promoting this predator as a global spokesman and spiritual leader. Is this true?” the women ask. “We need leadership, truth and transparency,” the women wrote. “We, your flock, deserve your answers now.” Since the Viganò report came out, a number of bishops have stepped forward to vouch for the archbishop’s integrity and have repeatedly called for an investigation into his allegations. The president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, requested that the Vatican order the inquiry, and traveled to Rome to make this request to the pope in person. He returned empty-handed. Despite growing consternation over the pope’s silence and inaction, his closest aides and boosters have closed ranks around him. The Rev. Antonio Spadaro, for instance, the editor of the Civiltà Cattolica journal and a personal friend of the pontiff, said the Viganò statement was “just evil,” adding that the pope himself “draws energy from the conflict.” https://www.breitbart.com/national-...pope-francis-be-a-man-and-answer-accusations/
Well at least we won't go into the darkness this filth is trying to drag us into quietly. At least we can go kicking and screaming.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2018/09/read...sych-tactics-used-against-priests-by-bishops/ Read and weep: Soviet style “psych” tactics used against priests by bishops. Posted on 25 September 2018 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf What I am about to post, read carefully. Over the last few months I have been contacted by diocesan priests (and a religious) who were being sent by their bishops (superior) to be “evaluated” at one of these psych clinics for clergy. The most (in)famous of these in these USA is St. Luke’s in Maryland. The pattern is alarmingly similar. The priest has some sort of dust up in the parish (or wherever). For example, a woman gets angry because he preached about contraception, someone claims that he as “boundary issues”, somebody on the staff says that he is “cold” or “remote”. They complain to the bishop. The bishop tells the priest – pressures the priest – to go for “evaluation”. With great trepidation the priest obeys (an important point). He goes for a week or two of evaluation, at the end of which he is told that there isn’t much wrong with him. He goes home, thinking that all is well. Shortly thereafter, he is called in to the bishop’s office, where he is told that the clinic sent the bishop a very different assessment. The priest is diagnosed – and it is always about the same – narcissism and borderline bi-polar. The bishop then really puts the screws to the man to go back that clinic for “treatment”. He is told for three months or so. But when he gets there, and they confiscate his mobile phone and even his shaving kit, and start pumping him full of drugs and monitoring/controlling email, he is told that he’ll be there for six months. The horror show begins. A common characteristic of the priests: they are conservative or traditionalists. I have a friend who was forced into one of these places and, when we could talk on the phone, he told me that I wouldn’t believe the number of conservative men there and what they were reading. And the fact that they are conservative is important, because conservatives tend to obey. This is one of the reasons why bishops in past have slammed down hard on conservatives but they let libs do any damn thing they want. Even if they are slightly inclined to be conservative themselves, they are moral cowards. They know that libs will fight them like hell and they don’t want the fight. But they can do anything they want to conservatives because they know that they tend to obey. There are some clergy who really do need help. However, bishops are using this process as a way of stomping out conservative or traditionalists in their dioceses. And I have a suspicion that this is coordinated. Why? In the last year, there was a period of a couple months in which several priests contacted me to tell me that they were going into the psych slammer at the order of their bishops. Before that, I hadn’t had any such call or contact. It suddenly started, as if some bishops had, among themselves, decided that this was a good way to get rid of troublemakers. It is almost as if, a one of their meetings, over evening cocktails, one of them grumbled about having this really traditional priest who was spreading his ideas about Latin and Communion rails. One of his pals, pouring another, piped up saying, “I’ll tell ya what works. Send him to St. Lukes for ‘evaluation’. They’ll send back something that can be used against him, one way or another. It’s expensive, but it works.” “Hey, thanks Bill! That’s a good idea. I’ll also tell Fatty and Dozer.* They’ve got these guys too.” Rare and rare and rare as hen’s teeth are bishops who openly back their conservative priests. Mind you… sending a guy for “treatment” is a really expensive endeavor. A month in one of these slammers costs a diocese many 10ks of bucks (of YOUR money). But they must figure that it is worth it, if they can intimidate priests into towing the line. Think of the quip of Voltaire on hearing that the Brits after the Battle of Minorca shot Admiral Byng on the deck of his own ship “to motivate the others”. As he put it in Candide, “Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres … In this country, it is good idea to kill an admiral once in a while to encourage the others.” That’s what bishops are doing to priests. Slam down hard with this “treatment” on a priest and the rest of the presbyterate will get the message. In the long run, though it is expensive, it’s ideologically worth it. Today I read at Dreher’s page a bit of a letter from a priest about this very topic. Dreher posted about The Kalchik Shakeup in Chicago. Kalchik was pastor at a parish where people burned an infamous “gay” banner against the wishes of Card. Blase “Rabbit Hole” Cupich. Kalchik was told that he had to get out of the parish, with minutes notice, or he would be arrested and that he was supposed to go for “evaluation”. Kalchik chose, instead, to go into hiding. I’m told that a prominent Catholic website will have an interview with Kalchik soon. Here’s what I read at Dreher’s. Read and weep. A parish priest e-mails: There is nothing that the laity can do to protect priests. Bishops have total authority over us. We can certainly walk away. We can leave. But Kalchick is a great example of what happens when a priest stands up to his bishop’s agenda. He’s probably done as a priest. contd..
He can submit to St. Luke’s and get the evaluation, but St. Luke’s has an alliance with the bishops as well. It’s the bishops who pay the bill. When a priest goes there the priest must sign a release for everything he discusses to be turned over to the bishop and the diocese. So how is he supposed to deal with any real psychological issues he might have knowing that the data is going to be sent back to the bishop and put into files or even potentially released or used against him? Point being, the priest isn’t free. It’s a coercive environment. It’s rigged against priests and the information can be used by bishops to continue to manipulate those priests for years to come, all under the guise of “I just want Fr. X to be healthy.” What they are really after is reconditioning priests to act within a particular safe metric to avoid bad publicity or cause problems. Sounds a bit Orwellian doesn’t it? Another side of this is that bishops have to hold liability insurance on their priests and if the priests have some kind of HR problem or Occupational Problem in their parish, the insurance companies are demanding bishops send them to places like St. Luke’s for a kind of “reconditioning therapy” that they don’t actually need. The priests are not actually in any kind of need of psychological assistance, but for the Diocese to continue to have the covered with liability insurance the insurance company puts pressure on the bishop for them to demonstrate that they have taken measures to lessen liability. A St. Luke’s program of 6 months of incarceration and therapy with 5 years of outpatient programming is just such a program. All of this goes into the priest’s file and is held against him the rest of his career to be trotted out any time he gets out of line. Notice, none of this has to do with the abuse of children. Perhaps some with moral failure or bad decisions. Maybe decisions that would cause a layperson to lose their job. But in the priesthood, you get the shame of six months of incarceration in a lock-down facility and forced psychological treatment that even these facilities know you do not need. But they participate in the sham because it’s big revenue and they are cashing in on the bishop’s need to cover their liability. This is happening in large numbers throughout the country to priests. This whole business bothers me enormously, to the point that a couple weeks ago I had an unsettling dream about creating a haven for priests, like a prepper redoubt, in Montana or some such place. They would be funneled to the redoubt, set up like a Camaldolese community, through a kind of underground railroad. I digress. My point is that this is a real problem. Be on the watch for it. This is what Communists did in the former Soviet union. If a person dissented, he must be mentally ill. Kill or send most to the camps, but diagnose some with “sluggish schizophrenia” and “treat them”… pour encourager les autres. Word gets around what’s in store for dissenters. I find it interesting that Fr. Kalchik fought back. Especially in this time. As for a priest friend of mine who was in one of these places? After a few months of “treatment” I barely recognized his conversation, his focus was shot, and his words were slurred. Wanna fight back? Send your diocesan donations to the TMSM. Money and bad press are about the only things some of these people understand. Maybe it is time to cut off all funds and channel them only to trustworthy traditional causes. *Long time readers may recognize the reference to “Fatty” as being Bp. Fatty McButterpants of the fictional Diocese of Libville, neighbor to the Diocese of Black Duck. “Dozer” is the nickname of Fatty’s old classmate, Bp. Antuninu Ruspa of Pie Town, who has a penchant for demolishing traditional churches and building, if anything – he sells properties as often as possible – worship spaces that look like municipal airports or the lobbies of trendy boutique hotels. Fatty’s loathsome and somewhat deformed dog Chester once, wisely, bit “Dozer” in the inside of the thigh, rather high up, requiring a humiliating visit to the ER and the ministrations of thick-forearmed nurse who had a lot of questions. As it turns out, Bp. McButterpants used the psych strike on a priest of Libville, the pastor of St. Christine the Astonishing, Fr. Joe Włotrzewiszczykowycki-Brzęczyszczykiewic. Fr. JoWo tried to get something good going at his parish for the many suffering liturgical refugees from Fr. Bruce Hugalot’s Sing A New Faith Community Into Being Faith Community. Fr. JoWo fled to the Diocese of Black Duck, where Bp. Noble gave him a safe haven without an “evaluation”. He often helps Msgr. Zuhlsdorf at St. Ipsidipsy in Tall Tree Circle for Solemn Masses and confessions while taking care of his own budding St. Philip Neri Oratory of Mary Cause of Our Joy. UPDATE: I am always blown away by the goodness of so many of you readers. I received this via email: If you believe this priest’s life might be in jeopardy, we can begin with him. I live 3 hours from Chicago in ___. I work full time but am single with no obligations. I don’t have much, but I am close to a dozen home schooling families who would love to have him. […] He would be safe out in ___. I am mildly familiar with the methods of concealment; […]. I could drive to Chicago with a rental, pick him up, drive him here. Safely deposit him with people who are, shall we say, familiar with the situation in the Church. Anyway, I sound nuts to myself writing this, but if it’s in your heart that this needs to be done, I may be able to help.
Pope Francis Stonewalls Journalists to Duck Questions on Sex Abuse Pope Francis masterfully controlled the press briefing aboard the papal plane Tuesday in such a way as to make sure that he did not have to face embarrassing questions about how he handled the case of serial abuser Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. The Q&A session with journalists on the return trip from the Baltic states Tuesday began with an announcement by papal spokesman Greg Burke that the first questions had to deal with the trip itself, saying the pope would later open up the floor to “other questions.” The pontiff proceeded to take several questions from local journalists before launching into a 40-minute monologue, effectively crowding out questions on the thorny issue of how he had dealt with the McCarrick case. When an Austrian journalist attempted to turn the conversation toward the sex abuse issue, which the pope had in fact briefly touched on during an address in Estonia, the pope said he would speak about it later. “I will respond, but first questions about the trip. This is the rule. But, it will be the first question after the trip,” he said. He never returned to the question. When Mr. Burke finally announced that “the questions about the trip are finished,” the pope himself took the floor rather than opening to further questions, announcing, “I would like to tell you some things on some points of the trip that I have experienced with a special strength.” This maneuver effectively precluded any more questions on the sex abuse issue. Italian and American journalists in particular had been poised to return to issues dodgedby the pope in the last such press conference, when he had been asked exactly when he learned of McCarrick’s history of homosexual abuse. They also intended to ask why the pope had not yet launched a full-scale investigation into the McCarrick case, which the U.S. bishops’ conference had explicitly requested. Over the last month Francis has kept silent over a series of allegations brought against him by the former papal nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, going so far as to paint himself as the victim of attacks. In his daily homilies at Mass, the pope suggested that whistleblowers who level accusations against bishops are in league with Satan, while accused pastors who keep silence are like Jesus on the cross. Archbishop Viganò released an 11-page report on August 25 declaring that the pope had been aware of McCarrick’s misdeeds at least since 2013 and yet lifted sanctions against McCarrick that Pope Benedict had imposed, reinstating him to a position of prominence in the Vatican. When a journalist later asked the pope whether these allegations were true, the pope refused to confirm or deny the report, saying he had no comment to offer and telling the journalists to “do their job” and investigate for themselves. https://www.breitbart.com/national-...newalls-journalists-duck-questions-sex-abuse/
More words... Pope in Estonia: Abuse scandals driving people away from Church September 26, 2018 | https://news.err.ee/864253/pope-in-estonia-abuse-scandals-driving-people-away-from-church Speaking at an ecumenical meeting with the youth in Tallinn on Tuesday, Pope Francis said that scandals related to sexual abuse and financing are driving people away from the Church, and thus the Church must change the way it acts if it wants to retain future generations. "They are outraged by sexual and economic scandals that are not met with clear condemnation, as well as our unpreparedness to to really appreciate the lives and sensibilities of the young, and simply by the passive role we assign them," Pope Francis said in his address at St. Charles' Church in Tallinn. "When we, adults, refuse to acknowledge some explicit situation, then tell us directly: 'Do you not understand then?'" the Pope said. "Some of the more straightforward among you might even say: 'Do you not understand that nobody is listening to you anymore or believes in what you wish to relay?' We ourselves must change; we have to realize that in order to stand by your side, we need to change many situations that, in the end, put you off. "We wish to answer to them; just as you said, we wish to be a transparent, welcoming, honest community open to the people — communicating, accessible, glad and interactive," the pope added. Pope Francis arrived in Estonia for a one-day visit Tuesday morning, the final leg of his Baltic tour on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the Republics of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. While in Tallinn, the Pope attended a reception with the civil authorities, civil society and the diplomatic corps in the Rose Garden at Kadriorg, attended an ecumenical meeting with young people at St. Charles' Church, and met with those assisted by the charitable works of the Church in Sts. Peter and Paul Cathedral. At 16:30 EEST, the Pope celebrated Holy Mass in Tallinn's Freedom Square, which was attended by over 10,000. Following Mass, the Pope departed Tallinn for the Vatican. Editor: Aili Vahtla, Source: BNS Edited to add: Full text of Pope Francis' in-flight press conference from Estonia https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...in-flight-press-conference-from-estonia-33293 September 25, 2018
This is an article from 2012 when the first abuse crisis went public - I find it still relevant today: THE ZEAL CHRIST REQUIRES by Edward T. Oakes3 . 14 . 12 I recently read a review of a book about Margaret Thatcher which argued that: “Thatcher . . . . wanted to restore the balance of virtues in Britain away from current sentimentalities such as compassion and toward the ‘vigorous virtues’ of courage and enterprise.” What struck me about the remark is that virtues can become their own enemies unless they are counterbalanced with other virtues. Thus if a society fosters only compassion at the expense of courage and enterprise, it risks becoming decadent and incapable of defending itself because it no longer fosters the virtue of courage. What is called for is what I shall not hesitate to call the virtue of zeal. Indeed, in the Gospel, Jesus justifies his driving out the moneychangers from the temple precincts, by invoking the prophecy of Isaiah: “Zeal for my Father’s house consumes me.” Now we live in a civilization that tends to look askance at zeal. One who shows zeal, after all, is known as a zealot , a word that has pejorative connotations, as does its cognate zealotry . These words conjure up an image of a fanatic, a beady-eyed maniac who, in Winston Churchill’s immortal words, “can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.” Of course, it has been recognized since the days of Aristotle that virtues, when taken to extremes, lead to vices. Virtue for Aristotle is the mean between two vicious extremes. Courage, for example, is the midpoint between foolhardiness and cowardice. Similarly, the twin vices of enterprise would be cutthroat capitalism or laziness. So let us admit: There is an extreme form of zeal that does lead to fanaticism. But there is also its opposite vice: lassitude , a devil-may-care attitude that refuses to get involved. I have long thought that one reason the sex-abuse crisis became so extreme was the lack of zeal on the part of bishops, who put an alleged “compassion” for abusive priests over the obvious welfare of their flocks. Many abusers, after all, perpetrated their crimes because of some kind of perverse compulsion. But bishops were under no psychological compulsion to move abusive priests from parish to parish, from therapist to therapist. Yet they did; and I cannot help but think they did so because they colluded in a culture that values compassion over zeal. For true zeal would have led them to drive out such crimes from their dioceses. And this is the real danger for Christians today, a casual attitude toward our religion, a lassitude that lives out that famous line often attributed to Edmund Burke: For evil to thrive, all that is necessary is that good men do nothing. The reason good Christians do nothing is because of this casual attitude toward sin . Zeal is really a function of one’s outrage at sin, just as anger is a natural reaction to injustice. Of course anger is also dangerous, since we are far more willing to be outraged at injustices to ourselves than to others. The same with zeal, which becomes fanaticism when we are more outraged at others’ sins than our own. But a refusal to acknowledge sin at all, in either ourselves or others, has led to the crisis the Church faces today. For without a sense of sin, we end up with the situation described so well by H. Richard Niebuhr as early as 1937: “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.” Without zeal, Christianity becomes a hollow shell of itself. One of Cardinal Newman’s sermons in his Parochial and Plain Sermons is called “Jewish Zeal, A Pattern to Christians.” After reviewing various episodes of Jewish courage in the Old Testament, from the battle-hardened Israelites to the denunciations of Jeremiah, Newman comes to this conclusion: What the Old Testament especially teaches us is this: “ that zeal is as essentially a duty of all God’s rational creatures, as [are] prayer and praise, faith and submission; and, surely, if so, [then] especially of sinners whom He has redeemed: that zeal consists in a strict attention to His commands”a scrupulousness, vigilance, heartiness, and punctuality, which bears with no reasoning or questioning about them”an intense thirst for the advancement of His glory”a shrinking from the pollution of sin and sinners”an indignation, nay impatience, at witnessing His honor insulted”a quickness of feeling when His name is mentioned, and a jealousy how it is mentioned”a fullness of purpose, an heroic determination to yield Him service at whatever sacrifice of personal feeling”and an energetic resolve to push through all difficulties, were they as mountains, when His eye or hand but gives the sign”a carelessness of obloquy, or reproach, or persecution, a forgetfulness of friend and relative, nay, a hatred (so to say) of all that is naturally dear to us, when He says, “Follow me.” If we truly mean what we pray every day, “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” then we are bound to feel zeal. For zeal really is the sense of discrepancy between what God wills for the world and how the world actually behaves. If we sense that discrepancy, then we are bound to feel the zeal Jesus did: “I have come to bring fire on the earth, and would it were already kindled!” Edward T. Oakes, S.J., teaches theology at the University of St. Mary of the Lake and is the author and he is the author, most recently, of Infinity Dwindled to Infancy: A Catholic and Evangelical Christology (Eerdmans). https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2012/03/the-zeal-christ-requires
Yes, it is relevant and will remains so because these issues were never dealt with to begin with and they are certainly not being dealt with now.
I came across the following which was posted as a comment on an article that I read and I thought that it might be helpful to some here, "In the almost two-thousand-year history of the Church the Second Vatican Council was only the twenty-first that convened. To have been present at that Council and to have had a part in it was one of the great blessings the Lord bestowed on my life... It was my honor to have been named to a preconciliar commission, namely the Catholic Action Commission... The tensions which developed after the Council are not surprising to those who know the whole history of the Church. It is a historical fact that whenever there is an outpouring of the Holy Spirit as in a General Council of the Church, there is always an extra show of force by the anti-Spirit or the demonic... Those who read the Documents of Vatican Council II have no idea how much care and preparation went into every word they contained. Having been on several commissions both prior to the Council and after it, I can testify to how we would discuss various Latin words for a day in order to arrive at a precise meaning. Then, after a chapter was prepared, printed and given to the Council Fathers, the debates on each subject went on for months until finally there were hammered out documents that were acceptable to all except a very few who voted against them, either because they felt there should never have been a Council, or because a pet idea of theirs had not been incorporated. Here is an example. One of the most sacrificial bishops in the Church... spoke with enthusiasm about calling the Church "the Church of the Poor." The Council floor heard all the arguments advanced by him and Cardinal Lercaro. The Theological Commission set up a special subcomission to study the text, and the expression "the Church of the Poor" was rejected because of its ambiguity. One of the grave dangers in any discussion is to take a simplistic point of view and divide all mankind into two classes - the rich and the poor, or the oppressors and the oppressed. It seems to have a divine approval, for St Paul wrote: "For your sake He made Himself poor though He was rich so that you might become rich by His poverty." But when a study was made of the Greek in the New Testament it was found that the Greeks had two words for "poor." (He then goes on with his detailed explanation, for which there is no room here.) Who is he? He is Archbishop Fulton Sheen. The bulk of the above is from the book "Treasure in Clay: The Autobiography of Fulton J. Sheen". *** The same commenter who posted the above also pointed out the following article which also contains some very thought provoking comments that I think you might also be interested in at the link below, Why Conservatism Is Part of the Problem, Not Part of the Solution Peter Kwasniewski | September 25, 2018 | https://onepeterfive.com/why-conservatism-is-part-of-the-problem-not-part-of-the-solution/#comments The reaction to Archbishop Viganò’s revelations – at least in the United States – should give us heart: there are still bishops of orthodox faith who respect human rights and divine justice. Moreover, in spite of the almost daily bad news from Rome, we find dioceses in which vocations are on the rise; we even find some traditional religious communities flourishing. After decades of amnesia, sacred music is returning to cathedrals and parishes. Good news is not lacking if one looks for it. Nevertheless, we can also still see a longstanding problem that slows down the pace of overdue reform and genuine renewal in the Church: the predominance of the basic stance of conservatism among bishops, priests, and faithful. A conservative is one who wishes to conserve the good at hand, which means maintaining the status quo while correcting notorious deviations. But the conservative has no principled motivation to return to and recover what has been lost, for he has no compelling reason to see it as more precious, more valuable, than a constellation of goods that happens to exist right now. (“Are there religious sisters who wear a kind of uniform and a crucifix? Great! Let’s keep that going, for we don’t want to lose it. After all, something’s better than nothing.”) The lover of Tradition, on the other hand, has the mind of the fifth-century father of the Church, St. Vincent of Lerin. For Vincent, as for a host of fathers, doctors, and popes, Tradition as such is superior to novelty; novelty is to be distrusted, resisted with all one’s might. (“If nuns are not wearing full habits with veils, time to give them two alternatives: embrace the traditional attire, or return to the world.”) Consequently, wherever traditional things have been lost, the traditionalist strives to restore them as fully as possible, whereas the conservative contents himself with preserving what is at hand – even if it may be mediocre in itself or was a novelty only a few years back. This helps explain the bizarre fact that, after so much bitter experience and so many irrefutable critiques, one still finds Catholic conservatives defending the Novus Ordo and popular church music. “These things are a few decades old, you know, and they’re what we’ve got right now, so we might as well conserve them!” This is why conservatism, in the end, turns out to be a slower, less self-conscious version of liberalism. Liberalism takes as a principle that change is inherently good and, thus, that faster change is even better – as long as the change is in any direction away from tradition. Conservatism takes as its supposedly contrary principle that it is better to hold on to what one has than to give it up without a fight, but it fails to recognize the problem that, due to the prevailing liberalism, more and more good things are surrendered, undermined, and habitually ignored with each passing year, leaving less and less to conserve. For these reasons, conservatism is liberalism in slow motion. What conservatives preserve, they preserve by force of custom and free choice, not by the firmness of a non-negotiable principle. As the truth fades away and people grow accustomed to its loss, the conservative has no ground to stand on; he wrings his hands while he watches beautiful things getting dismantled and sent away. (Sometimes it’s worse than that: the conservative will drive himself insane, zealously defending the same horrible novelties he would have decried only a few years before. We’ve seen this rubbery allegiance time and again. For example, it’s wrong to wash women’s feet at Mass on Holy Thursday – until the pope says it’s okay. Suddenly, out come the specious arguments to back it up, as if it had been true all along!) In contrast, adherence to Tradition goes beyond conservation of whatever minimal good is at hand, for it demands the love and honorable defense of an inheritance that is received and must not be squandered. And if part of this inheritance has been lost, the traditionalist knows that it must be restored with unstinting effort and in the face of all opposition. continued...
continued from above... Accordingly, traditionalists are and must be, by the nature of their allegiance to Tradition, reformers, in the same way that figures like St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila were reformers. Wherever a traditionalist sees a serious deviation from Tradition, he strives to reinstate what is venerable. “So what if we’ve had fifty years of vernacular Novus Ordo Masses, facing the people, with bad music? That’s nothing in comparison with well over 1,500 years of tradition. We must return to what is most richly and most perfectly Catholic.” The problem comes down to this. If you do not understand Tradition, both as a formal principle and as material content, you cannot possibly see what is wrong with the status quo – you have no means of comparison, no proportionality. If you hold on to something not because of principle, but only out of sentimentality or habit, it will sooner or later be taken away from you. Indeed, you deserve to have it taken away. The inverse is also true: if you hold on to something because it is true and good and beautiful, it can never be taken away from your mind and heart, even if it may be suppressed in the world and you may suffer persecution. In due time, the Lord will raise it from the dead and give it a new life, contrary to all the predictions of the “experts.” Because many of the “best” bishops today are merely conservatives and not lovers of tradition, they have little desire to recover, to restore, to hand down the inheritance in full. It seems to me that there are three reasons for this flaw: (1) they are not intimately acquainted with tradition, nor with how it has been lost; (2) they do not desire to know its worth, or even to inquire what kind of tragedy its loss might be; (3) they are content with the status quo, provided it be kept free from what they see as obvious excesses or distortions. On this third point, major subjectivism enters in, because what is seen as a deviation will vary a great deal from one conservative to another. For instance, one conservative will see lay extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion and female altar servers as they truly are – an offensive break with unanimous Eastern and Western tradition going back to the earliest liturgical and canonical records available to us – while another may see such practices as mere administrative or bureaucratic decisions, with no serious repercussions. In this way, conservatives end up losing their influence because their lack of principled adherence to tradition leaves them splintered, tentative, and unwilling to draw any line in the sand. They wait…and watch…and lose Catholicism, year by year. It is the argument of cowardice, or at the very least, a sad lack of imagination, to say: “It’s just not possible in this day and age to implement this or that reform” or “It’s been too long – we can’t recover that old belief or practice,” or “the best is enemy of the good, you know.” Yes, but the bad or the worst is also the enemy of the good; old things are continually being revived, such as the Hebrew language in Israel; and why are we putting limitations on ourselves and especially on God as to what is possible and what is impossible? Do we know what is possible until we try it or pray for it? Every serious reform movement in the history of the Church has risen up against impossible odds and won by God’s grace. Every serious reform movement has based itself on past tradition that has been lost, obscured, or diluted. The victories we enjoy in the midst of this vale of tears will always be temporary, but they are not unreal for not being eternal, and they were purchased not without unbending faith, hope against hope, and the gritty charity that seeks the best and thrusts away evil. If we do not fight for Tradition, we will end up fighting for yesterday’s status quo, which gets worse and worse with the passing of the godless decades of the post-Christian secular world – and, sad to say, of the numerous post-Christian clergy of the Church. That is why we have all experienced or known about parishes where things never seem to get much better, regardless of how well intentioned the new pastor may be. Out there in the mainstream world inhabited and fought over by liberals and conservatives, the “bar,” the standard of Catholicism, is always sinking, sometimes faster, sometimes slower. There is no upward force of tradition to prevent it from sinking into Gehenna. Why is Divine Providence permitting this present catastrophic pontificate, with all the evils it has spawned or brought to light? I truly believe (to the extent that any of us can discern the mysterious ways of God) that He is issuing a stern wake-up call to serious Catholics everywhere: abandon the sinking ship of Vatican II Catholicism; abandon the fabricated liturgy of Paul VI; abandon a confused theology that wants to speak out of both sides of the mouth; abandon compromise with worldliness in morals; and return to the safe, spacious, and sustaining haven of Tradition – traditional doctrine as found in Sacred Scripture, dogmatic councils, and countless old catechisms; traditional morals as exemplified in the lives and exhortations of the saints; traditional theology as practiced by the Church fathers and doctors; and most importantly, traditional liturgy, stretching from before the time of St. Gregory the Great (d. 604) through St. Pius V (Quo Primum, 1570) and beyond, handed down and received as a precious inheritance, without any massive break or reconstruction according to the spirit of the age. If this crisis is telling us anything, it is telling us this: stop pretending the Church can accommodate modernity and its panoply of errors, just as long as she window-dresses everything with pious language and vague appeals to a hermeneutic of continuity. Stop reassuring yourself that aggiornamento, contrary to the frequent admissions of its advocates and the plenteous ruination caused by their ideas, meant just an updating of incidentals and didn’t touch the essence of the Faith. Stop thinking you can serve two masters: “What concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?” (2 Cor. 6:15). In short: Give up the conservatism. If you are still a “John Paul II Catholic,” still a “Benedict XVI Catholic,” now is the acceptable time to become simply a Catholic, the kind of man of faith who would have been found in and recognized by every age, prior to our benighted postconciliar generation. Replace low-fat liberalism with the raw milk of Tradition. Begin the longed-for renewal of the Church by nourishing your soul on the feast God has been preparing for you for 2,000 years, “a feast of fat things, a feast of wine, of fat things full of marrow, of wine purified from the lees” (Is. 25:6). As for recent novelties, it seems best – indeed, it seems unavoidable – to let the dead bury the dead. PS- I want to add that I don't agree with every detail of this article from Peter Kwasniewski but I do agree with his premise.
Day #32 Today is the 32th day since the publication of Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano's Testimony. (The full text is here; it was made public on the evening of August 25.) And yesterday Pope Francis, in his airplane press conference on the flight back to Rome from Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, broke his silence on Vigano's document(!). At least, to an extent... What did Francis say? (See full text below) Pope Francis attributed his decision to sign the new pact between the Holy See and the Chinese government (on September 22) in part to events set in motion by... Vigano's text. But why did he say that? September 26, 2018, Wednesday "A sign of God" Because, when Vigano's text came out on August 25, and was reported worldwide as an attack on Pope Francis, bishops and bishops' conferences in every part of the world sent letters of loyalty and support to Pope Francis, Francis said yesterday, and among these letters was a letter from China signed by... ...one bishop from the "Patriotic" Catholic Church (approved by the Communist government) and... ...one bishop from the "underground" Catholic Church loyal to Rome. Pope Francis said all this yesterday evening during his press conference on the airplane flying back from Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. (See below for the actual text of the Pope's remarks) Then Pope Francis revealed that he interpreted this letter, signed by two bishops representing the two main "groups" of Chinese Catholics as "a sign from God" to go ahead with his agreement with China(!). That is an interesting insight into the Pope's mind and decision-making. An "obscure threat" But what is still more interesting is an "obscure threat" mentioned today in a curious report on this matter in the Italian press. This report is entitled "Papa Francesco, il caso Viganò e il 'segno di Dio' che ha accelerato l'accordo con la Cina" ("Pope Francis, the Vigano case and the 'sign of God' that accelerated the accord with China"). It was published this afternoon in Italy by HuffPost. (link) The author is Maria Antonietta Calabrò. Calabrò suggests that there is some connection between the allegations against Pope Francis made by Archbishop Vigano, and the just-signed accord between the Vatican and China. The Vatican, as the center of the Catholic Church, has been the most long-enduring and, arguably, influential "spiritual" power in human history, and counted among its faithful some 1.285 billion people at the end of 2015. China, whose citizens have always considered their country the "Middle Kingdom," is now a rising global economic and "temporal" power, and in 2016 it counted a population of 1.379 billion people. In this context, Calabrò is suggesting that some authority or power would like to impede or halt a rapprochement which would see a new and unexpected collaboration between a "spiritual" and a "temporal" power which together have some type of moral or governing authority over more that 2.7 billion people out of a total present global population of 7.652 billion people (link) -- more than 35% of the world's total. She is suggesting, it seems, that the turmoil surrounding the papacy of Pope Francis is to be explained as the result of various "chess moves" in a complicated geopolitical game involving worldly powers struggling for predominance who care not at all about the implications of their moves for the spiritual life or souls of Catholics everywhere. Is this thesis tenable? Does it have any basis in fact? First, we must begin by assessing the author of this report. Is she credible? Answer: Yes. Calabrò is not only a talented, well-informed and highly respected journalist, she has also written in a thoughtful way precisely about some of the most important matters in the Church over many years, including stories on the collapse of the Banco Ambrosiano and the death of Roberto Calvi, and books called The Hands of the Mafia, and The Secrets of the Vatican (on Vatileaks 1). Moreover, as I can confirm, she is a journalist whose work has long been closely and attentively read by none other than... Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, as Vigano himself told me some years ago. So we may assess the author as someone generally worthy of our attention. Second, we must analyze and assess her argument. What is the main thrust of her report? It is that the signing of the Holy See-China agreement is of such importance that opponents of the agreement have been willing to pull out "all the stops" to postpone the signing of the agreement, or, failing that, to diminish dramatically the credibility of the signers of the agreement. In other words, she is arguing that in this moment the Holy See-China agreement is "the real issue," not pedophilia or homosexuality in the Church or the coverup of sexual abuse by the hierarchy, and therefore that any and all attacks on Pope Francis, whether by Vigano or anyone else, must be read in the light of the Holy See-China agreement.
She writes: "No one can deny that the accord of the Vatican with China takes on a geopolitical value beyond a spiritual and religious value." ("Nessuno può negare che l'accordo del Vaticano con la Cina assuma un valore geopolitico oltre che spirituale e religioso.) "Just when the United States of Trump has begun a trade war with Beijing, the American Catholic right in recent days recalled the role of unofficial negotiator carried out by the now former Cardinal McCarrick precisely with China." ("Proprio nel momento in cui gli Stati Uniti di Trump hanno iniziato una guerra commerciale con Pechino, la destra cattolica americana ha ricordato nei giorni scorsi il ruolo di negoziatore non ufficiale svolto dall'ormai ex cardinale McCarrick proprio con la Cina.") "It is precisely about a trip to China by McCarrick in 2013 that the former Nuncio Viganò spoke in his 'statement,' as proof of the Pope's condescension towards him. ("E proprio di un viaggio in Cina di McCarrick nel 2013 ha parlato l'ex Nunzio Viganò nel suo 'comunicato,' come prova della condiscendenza del Papa nei suoi confronti.") "Also the predecessor of Francis, the Pope emeritus Benedict XVI, who was also the author of an open letter to Chinese Catholics, received obscure threats at the beginning of 2012 after a trip to China by another prelate. And that document ended up among those of the first Vatileaks scandal." ("Anche il predecessore di Francesco, il Papa emerito Benedetto XVI, anche lui estensore di una lettera aperta ai cattolici cinesi, ricevette all'inizio del 2012 oscure minacce dopo un viaggio in Cina di un altro prelato. E quel documento finì tra quelli del primo scandalo Vatileaks.") Calabrò has been making this argument for some time. For example, a week ago, on September 19, before the Holy See-China agreement was signed on September 22, she wrote a piece titled "Le ombre del caso McCarrick si allungano sull'accordo tra Santa Sede e Cina per la nomina dei vescovi" ("The shadows of the McCarrick case lengthen over the accord between the Holy See and China for the nomination of bishops"). The subtitle was: "Il dossier cinese per il Vaticano si interseca con quello della pedofilia e il caso Viganò. Ciò potrebbe scatenare nuovi attacchi contro il Papa" ("The Chinese dossier, for the Vatican, intersects with the dossier on pedopholia and the Vigano case. This could unleash new attacks against the Pope." (link) In her piece of last week, she also stressed that the Vatican accord with China was occurring just as the US President, Donald Trump, was launching a trade war with China. She summed up: "Si tratta [speaking of the negotiations of the Vatican with China] di un altro "dossier" in cui Trono (Presidenza USA ) e Altare (Papa Francesco) si trovano su lunghezze d'onda molto diverse" ("The negotiations of the Vatican with China constitute another 'dossier' in which Throne (the presidency of the USA) and Altar (Pope Francis) find themselves on very different wavelengths.") So her argument is that the attacks on Pope Francis and the calls for his resignation are in some way animated by... forces close to the present US government, seen as in strong opposition to the Holy See's new "opening" to China. In today's piece, Calabrò notes that former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, 88, the man at the center of Vigano's Testimony (which is, essentially, a "who's who" of those in the Church hierarchy whom Vigano charges "covered" for McCarrick over the past two decades) made at least 8 trips to China over many years, including at least one during this pontificate of Pope Francis. She notes that it was precisely a trip that McCarrick made to China in June of 2013, with Francis' evident knowledge and blessing — after a period of about 7 years under Pope Benedict when McCarrick made no trips to China — which was used by Vigano as "proof" that Francis "favored" or "rehabilitated" McCarrick though (Vigano says) Francis knew of allegations sexual abuse against McCarrick. In other words, she is pointing out that the trip of McCarrick to China in June 2013 is a key hinge point in Vigano's Testimony. This is interesting, as a thesis. But the concluding lines of this report today by Calabrò seem a bit odd. Calabrò says that, after another trip to China by another high-ranking Catholic cardinal, Benedict XVI in early 2012 received "obscure threats." So Calabrò is suddenly comparing the allegations against Francis in 2018 (that he did not take action to sanction a cardinal said to be guilty of sexual molestation of seminarians) with "obscure threats" made in 2012 against Benedict. It is true enough that "obscure threats" were made in 2012 against Benedict. In 2012, on February 10 — exactly one year and one day before Pope Benedict XVI announced he would resign the papacy — an Italian paper reported that, during a November 2011 trip to China, Cardinal Paolo Romeo, Archbishop of Palermo, Sicily, speaking to a group of Italian businessmen also visiting China, had told the businessmen that there was a plot in Rome to poison Pope Benedict and that the assassination plot would succeed and that Benedict would be dead within one year. The report was picked up and published around the world. For example, the London Daily Mail reported: "A senior Vatican cardinal has sensationally claimed Pope Benedict XVI could be ‘the victim of an assassination plot’ within the next 12 months, it emerged today. "Cardinal Paolo Romeo is said to have revealed the details while on a visit to China and that another cardinal who was told of the comments, then submitted a top secret report to the Vatican Secretary of State. "The plot, which could come straight out of a Dan Brown-style thriller, was revealed in Italian newspaper Il Fatto Quotidiano today. "Cardinal Romeo, who is Archbishop of Palermo, is said to have made the claims during his visit to China last November where he met with Italian businessmen and local Catholic Church officials. "The Catholic Church is not officially recognised in China and relations between the two are strained but in November, Pope Benedict did grant approval for the ordination of a new bishop which was accepted by the Bejing government." (link) Of course, Benedict was not poisoned, and did not die "within 12 months" as allegedly predicted by Romeo. So, Romeo was, in fact, wrong. And being wrong, we might simply ignore Romeo's entire prediction, regarding it, perhaps, as some sort of "un-serious" conversation among Italians on a visit to China. But about 15 months after Romeo made his (alleged) remarks, Benedict was no longer Pope, in one of the most startling ecclesial decisions in centuries, a decision still affecting us in profound ways today. So, to this extent, Romeo seems to have been oddly prescient: Benedict was no longer Pope a very short time after Romeo predicted he would not be Pope. But why does Calabrò bring all this up again today, in a totally different context? Why would a serious Italian journalist end a piece about the (very controversial) decision of Pope Francis to sign an agreement with China with this odd observation: — that, just as one cardinal's visit to China (McCarrick's in 2013) led (eventually) to "threats" made against Pope Francis (in 2018, in Vigano's Testimony, in his call for Francis' resignation), so another cardinal's visit to China (Romeo's in late 2011) ended up in the circulating of "obscure threats" against Pope Benedict (that he would be poisoned in the course of the year 2012). This is puzzling. An allegation that someone has covered up for someone who has sexually molested young men (the allegation made against Francis by Vigano) is seemingly not comparable to the prediction that a Pope will die of poisoning due to a plot against him by his enemies (the prediction made by Romeo about Pope Benedict). Why are they compared? Frankly, I remain puzzled. I do not understand how Vigano's Testimony relates to Romeo's prediction about Benedict dying. Still, often when people write something, they have a reason for what they write. It just isn't clear what that reason is in this case... ==============
